On Jun 14, 5:19 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:

"skyeyes" <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote in message

news:1181864367.925880.109250@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 14, 3:55 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:

"skyeyes" <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote in message

news:1181856720.934654.173300@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 2, 10:33 pm, t1gercat <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

As for the argument that a woman has the right to her own
reproductive
freedom, I find that a bit shallow. A woman has a definite right
not
to engage in reproductive sex. If she can't keep her legs together,
however, and is too stupid, lazy or willful to use any
contraceptive
methods, begging a "right" to abort a gestating human being is to
me a
vile stretch, especially in an age when unwed motherhood is common
and
accepted.

1. Contraception fails a certain percentage of the time. I was
using
two forms simultanously (the pill and the IUD) and they both failed.

Very hard to believe.

Nonetheless, it happened. And birth control *still* fails today, even
when religiously applied - although, thankfully, it doesn't fail as
often.

Oh, I agree that it does fail at times and I also agree that we should be
thankful that it doesn't fail as often.
But your claiming to have used TWO contraception methods at the same time
and both failed at the same time.

Nevertheless, they *did*. If you're going to call me a liar, please
do it plainly.

If abortion hadn't been legal and available, I would have been
forced
to either give birth to a child I didn't want, or to resort to some
(possibly life-threatening) form of illegal abortion.

2. Some women don't want children (wed or un-), period.

Then get the operation so you can't have children.

Oh, believe me, cupcake, I *tried*. Unfortunately, it was the early
1970s, and in those bad old days, the medical establishment had a
formula they followed (I forget precisely how it went, but it was
along the lines of "woman's age + number of existing children must
equal at least 45" ), and unless the answer they worked out fell
within certain parameters, you couldn't get your tubes tied. I
begged. I pleaded. Everyone kept insisting that I'd change my mind.
Never happened.

Fortunately, nowadays I'm a happy post-menopausal 57 and no longer
fertile. And, true to the kind of luck I have, nowadays most women
who want their tubes tied can usually find a doctor who will do it.
Then, of course, all she has to do is (1) have the money to pay for it
and (2) be willing to undergo the not-inconsiderable risks of surgery.

From the looks of things, you would be placing a child in harms way if
you
did have one.

If I had been forced to keep it, you bet. I'd have killed it the
first time it wouldn't stop crying (just like Katherine Hepburn).

At least your honest about it, and that I can admire. I may not like
your
"opinion", but I do respect and admire your honesty.

It was Socrates, I believe, admonished us to "know thyself." I was
taught from an early age to lead the examined life. I'm what is
called an "early articulator," a person who knows as a child that they
don't want children. There are *tons* of us around, although we're
vastly outnumbered by those who live their lives blindly following The
Script and have kids whether they actually want them or like them or
*not*. The results are frequently horrific. What, you don't think
all those kidlets left in hot cars to be sizzled are *accidents*, do
you? Many of them are post-natal abortions, by parents who realized
what a huge mistake they made.

People like

you would either condemn them to giving birth (a far more dangerous
process than a TAB, from the woman's perspective) to a child they
don't want, or would require them, like nuns, to go through life
without sex.

You can have your sex..who cares...have an orgie for all I care. But
why
put an innocent life in the picture?

It was my sincere wish *not* to put an innocent life in the picture.
That's why I was on birth control. Which failed.

Get an operation if you truly don't want children, you're not fit to
be a
mother anyway.

Well, as I've related above, I no longer need my tubes tied, as my
fertility ship has finally sailed, praise be.

It is entirely true that I am unfit to be a mother. Fortunately, I
knew that at the grand old age of 11, and took steps to avoid
motherhood. That's why I was on birth control. Which failed.

Then go out and have sex with as many guys and girls as you
want.

Well, I hate to burst your little bubble, but I'm monogamous. My
purty Navajo boyfriend is the only guy I need or want. And sex with
girls???? Sorry, lambchop, but your attempts to paint me as somebody
who will ***** anything with a pulse are dead on arrival. I'm about as
straight as they come.

O.k., I admit it was a cheap shot on my part...I apologize.

Apology accepted. And if you were to offer an apology for insinuating
that I'm lying about my birth control methods having failed, I might
consider accepting that, too, since I'm basically a nice person.

The bald fact is this: you don't have the right to tell other
people
how to live their lives.

Anyone has the right to say what they want.

True. What you *don't* have the right to do is pass laws that force
me to live my life by your lights.

Who said I wish to do that??? I personally support a woman's right to
make
any legal choices...that doesn't mean that I would support "the choice".

You don't have to *like* the choice to abort, as long as you support a
woman's right to *make* the choice.

groups, I don't see a lot of that from you. What I see when I read
your posts is a guy who is eager to put women in pigeonholes - "She's
too stupid/ignorant/lazy/slutty and got pregnant as a result, so why
should she have the choice to abort?" - [paraphrasing, not actually
quoting you]. I get the impression that you'd love to make the choice
to abort illegal.

If you don't like abortion, then by all

means, refrain from having one. Leave me and my sexual and
reproductive choices out of your range of endeavors,
thankyouverymuch.

Stop telling us about your sexual reproductive choices then

And I quote: "Anyone has the right to say what they want."

I share my testimony on alt.abortion and related newsgroups because of
anti-woman assholes like *you* who insist on shoehorning all women
into the same mold - "must love children, must be maternal, must have
sex *only* for reproduction, and if they get pregnant, it's because
they were too stupid/lazy to use birth contol, so they must be forced
to undergo pregnancy and birth whether they want to or not!"

As I said before, if *you* don't like abortion, then don't have one.

Oh, silly me, you're a *guy*, you can't have a baby anyway! What
*was* I thinking??? <Spit>

No, I'm a father who loved his children from the day I learned they were
coming into this world.

Good for you. Children need and deserve to be loved, but those of us
who know we are unsuited to bring children into this world need a
backup plan, abortion, in case Plan A fails, as it did in my case.
Unfortunately, not all people are suited to parenthood, and condemning
them to being parents by outlawing abortion is merely setting the
resultant kid up for a lifetime of pain and unhappiness.

For what it's worth, and apropos of nothing in particular, I think
that my dislike of children has a physiological basis. Scientists
tell us that a child's cry stimulates an adult's brain to go find out
what's wrong, and fix the problem. With me, that isn't the case, I
feel only extreme annoyance and anger. Scientists also say that
babies secrete sebum, which makes them smell good to their parents,
thus eliciting positive actions on the part of the caregivers. In my
case, I think babies stink horribly; the smell that everyone else
finds so enticing is just sickening to me. And other people (women
and men) who dislike children report similar phenomena. Nature seems
to be de-selecting some of us for parenthood. Which is plenty fine
with me.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net

osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:

Osprey <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:

"skyeyes" <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote in message

On Jun 2, 10:33 pm, t1gercat <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

As for the argument that a woman has the right to her own reproductive
freedom, I find that a bit shallow. A woman has a definite right not
to engage in reproductive sex. If she can't keep her legs together,
however, and is too stupid, lazy or willful to use any contraceptive
methods, begging a "right" to abort a gestating human being is to me a
vile stretch, especially in an age when unwed motherhood is common and
accepted.

1. Contraception fails a certain percentage of the time. I was using
two forms simultanously (the pill and the IUD) and they both failed.

Very hard to believe.

And yet you still believe almost everything Bush tells you, and still
think that Iraq had WMDs.

And yet you still believe almost everything Michael Moore tells you

And you base that idiocy on what?

And yes, I do think it's highly likely that Iraq had WMD's.

Sucker.

If abortion hadn't been legal and available, I would have been forced
to either give birth to a child I didn't want, or to resort to some
(possibly life-threatening) form of illegal abortion.

2. Some women don't want children (wed or un-), period.

Then get the operation so you can't have children.

Which means NEVER having children.

Yea, that's usually what it means.

Moron.

People like
you would either condemn them to giving birth (a far more dangerous
process than a TAB, from the woman's perspective) to a child they
don't want, or would require them, like nuns, to go through life
without sex.

You can have your sex..who cares...have an orgie for all I care. But why
put an innocent life in the picture?

Like you want to punish innocent women?

Like you like to lie??

What lie, *****?

The bald fact is this: you don't have the right to tell other people
how to live their lives.

Anyone has the right to say what they want.

Moron.

So you disagree with freedom of speech.

Wrong again, *****.